The problem of Heaven

[griggs1947]

People credit Alvin Platinga to have keel hauled the logical problem of evil with his defense of free-will. Nay, he rather adds to it!
Nelson Pike in " God and Evil," expatiates on how we would be robots had we no power to do wrong, but he just adds to the problem.
The problem of Heaven, to which the problem of Hell adds an egregious problem is that as the denizens of Heaven have free will and a guarantee never to do wrong, then it wold be consistent, and no hobgoblin of little minds for the same to be here! We'd be more in His image -imago deo- then!
And the idea of soul-making is then unnecessary.
Willliam Rowe is ever fine-tuning the evidential problem from evil, which somewhat keel hauls all theodicy and defense.
Theodicy is the cop-out of His nonchalance to animal suffferring [ ours included].
There is also the problem of His foreknowledge and our free will. There is also the problem of the incompatibility of His omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence [ the ignostic problem].
The one way-street for Him is that He has the duty to put us into a far better place, but He has no right to receive worship or judge us!
Eudaimonist,yea!
Yea, theists have grave problems with theism!
Good will and blessings to all!

 

[Bushido216]

Omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

 

[NHI]

Omniscience and free will aren't incompatible.

Can you know either?

 

[Bushido216]

Yes?

It's basically a question of logical deduction. In some circumstance where their existed an entity known as God, who had the usual characteristics associated with God, would his existence (and its associated characteristics) prevent free will.

I'm positing a specific question. Does the existence of OUR God preclude free will because I don't have to. I don't have to know if our God exists or not in order to answer the question.

But in short, the answer is no, the two are separate.

 

[griggs1947]

Yes, God could, for the sake of argument , know our futures in detail without that denying our free will. My problem is how could He know them as they depend on the vagaries of life. Sure, one reasonably guess what some person from her past behavior will do in the matter of some conflict, but then not always be right.
Now it is no hobgoblin of little minds to ask theists why they think that He is not Super Robot and the others there are not robots also. Here , for the sake of argument , one can indeed claim that by nature He is good, and as the tests of soul-making through free will, aren't necessary as His foreknowledge would tell Him how the tests would pan out.
Theologian John Hick maintains that we rationalists advocate paradise on Earth. We do only as he has a boomerang problem: He is guessing that Heaven will be a paradise, so we can, perforce, take that as our starting point! Again, if the denizens of Heaven had free will and never do wrong, the same logicallly leads to this thesis that the same would be consistent here.
He makes the otherwise straw man of the all or nothing and the slippery slope fallacies [three!]. :o
Burton Porter maintains that instead of good and evil for contrasts, there could be good and no pointless evils, and better still the contrast could be betwixt good, better and best. Natural disasters and other humans take away people's free will. And then there are those who supererogate- go beyond any duty- who thmeselves underwent no great tests.:o
So, that puts the line at where to stop on the slope and is something whilst not all or nothing.

 

[griggs1947]

And there is the limited God, of Brightman and Bertocci, who has the '" Given," something in His nature analogus to our nature that keeps Him from acting in our behest.
What do you other Christians say to those two "
I'll give the naturalist answer next time.
Please post rebuttals!
Evil is the presence of the pointless harmful.
And Hell perforce adds to this problem.
We all can make this Earth less a Hell!
Goodwill and blessings to all!
Your double depressed [ not at the monent] happy fellow inguirer!
Inquisitive Lynn

 

[griggs1947]

Bertocci and Brightman err in that limited God can never achieve His goal of overcoming the evil with the good for all time. They reason well against traditional theism in that it cannot excuse with the greater good defense that destroys the difference betwixt good and evil.That defense includes the HIs ways aren't ours that does indeed undermine the distinction.
I take my argument from Madden and Hare's " Evil and the Concept of Evil." I however do take exception to their remark that limited God hs the responsibility to inform humans of His efforts whilst omni-max doesn't: He would also bear this responsibility as Schellenberg's hiddenness argument maintains.
Josiah Royce presents his case for the Absolute as the theistic God, but He Himself has to build character as He contains evil. As with the other two, he cannot illustrate the final overcoming of evil This God feel sour pain.
So theologians go from one hole to another in their ever- seeking need to overcome objections, ever failing!
And next time I'll discuss process theologians' approach.
What do you think about this limited God?
Now, when one asseverates like Nelson Pike in his long essay in " God and Evil," we'd be robots had we guaranteed free will to only do good, he needs to wear protective padding when that boomerang returns. And it would follow then that God is the Supreme Robot!
Again, this requirement for consistency is no hobloblin of little minds.And the probllem of Hell adds to the problem. And there should be no Atonement! Judaism prefers indiviual expiation.

 

[griggs1947]

Midnight, here is something you might argue against us modern rationalists: Had there not been evil , none of us would be here! Had the relgious and other wars and other horrors not have happened, our ancestors wouldn't have gotten married to one another, and so none of our parents would have been born. Hurray then for the pointless evils,eh!
Again, why the test as He'd have forneseen the results anyway? And as Burton illustrates, the tests could be rational ones.
Again, how can you sir or ma'am justify the pointless evils when Burton illustrates no need for the pointless evils even without paradise on Earth or we others who use this problem to illustrate the irrational inconsistency of paradisical Heaven and at times hellish Earth.
Fellow naturalists/rationalists, have your say here, please.
Supernaturalists, as God does not have to be Yahweh or Allah, why wouldn't He have done wihat I call the one-way street to have been consistent?
Oh, what about reincarnation in this matter?
Bushido, eh?

 

[griggs1947]

We ever try to diminish the amount of evil without ever thinking that maybe we shouldn't as that robs Him of the greater good and His greater ways! He would know the results beforehand of the tests so that they aren't necessary. And He wouldn't want worship in order to test us anyway!
There is no need then for that kind of free will and soul-making. John Hick, as usual, guesses the may be that their would be analogue virtues in Heaven, but that begs the question! What good are the test scores there? Does one get a better place for showing heroism than not?
Yes, supernaturalists ever rationalize pointless evil! The Holocaust wasn't necessary for many Jews to have their own state, resulting in more suffering for them and the Arabs! To aver that His ways beat ours mocks and blasphemes morality and-humanity! That those ways argument rests on the argument from ignorance! What is important is what is good for us rather than for Him as covenant morality notes!

 

[griggs1947]

Alvin Plantinga self-congratulates, claiming that He eviscerates the logical problem of evil, but no, he merely speculates with no evidence to suggest any speculation of the unknown defense argument, which is an argument from ignorance. He alleges that the mere logical possibility illuminates the argument. No, in face of all the evil that the evidentail argument from evil notes, no one can find any such superior reason for Him to allow pointless evils! Again, that blasphemes morality! It undercuts what we mean by evil in that perhaps we ought to let more people get away with murder so that He can make more blessings! Again, the horrors of the Holocaust and the subsequent horrors betwixt the Arabs and the Israelis require faith, the we just so so of credulity to find any matter for the greater good!
John Hick speculates, and that's all any theologian ever does, that perhaps there are analogical virtues in Heaven. Again, why not here to be consistent: were we robots here with free will and a guarnatee not to do wrong, then the very same would happen in Heaven!
Hell compounds the problem. Again, Hick speculates that some form of purgatory might exist such that all will go to Heave, but again why not in the first place?
No, the problem of Heaven eviscerates all defenses and theodicies!
And again, Hick speculates that we'll know why when we get to Heaven, but that is false empiricism.
Near death experiences like all religious expereince is merely ones own mind at play! They cannot evidence Heaven or -Hell.
And with Roy Jackson in " The God of Philosophy," I demand that supernaturalists evidence Heaven and free will rather than be dogmatic for us to start with accepting them. Bible-thumping won't do as that begs the question, and we infidels find it fallacious anyway.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Isnt it possible that alongside of free will, for there to be sin there needs to be the necessary condition of the devil's temptation. So that in heaven, if there devil has no influence, there there will be no sin even if there is free will?

 

[griggs1947]

Growing Smaller, yes, and Yahweh should go ahead to keep the Devil,for the sake of argument a real being, from tempting people just as there! Ah, but if He kicked the Devil out of Heaven, then what would keep others from "sinning,"since the Devil knew he doing wrong, why not then others being kicked out?
Growing Smaller and others, what then do you maintain about all that? I think you, Growing Smaller are onto something big!
Also, theologians themselves debate whether God can know the future without that meaning we don't really have free wil? And as Roy Jackson in " The God of Philoosphy," wants to know how do we even know there is Heaven, and do we really have free will in order to fathom well how supernaturalists handle the problem of evil. I add, that they must do so without using Scripture, as that would beg the question , since that for many of us is questionable anyway.
And why should we not think that maybe Allah rather than Yahweh is the real God, again without using Scripture so as to know who has the real Heaven?
And the original question remains the chief topic.
Thanks in advance to all who comment!
Blessings and goodwill to all!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Growing Smaller, yes, and Yahweh should go ahead to keep the Devil,for the sake of argument a real being, from tempting people just as there! Ah, but if He kicked the Devil out of Heaven, then what would keep others from "sinning,"since the Devil knew he doing wrong, why not then others being kicked out?
Growing Smaller and others, what then do you maintain about all that? I think you, Growing Smaller are onto something big!

I am not sure about that, as theories have to survive rigorous critique in order to survive, but thanks all the same. What I am saying (I repeat) is that the presence of the devil could be a necessary condition for sin, although not sufficient, just as there being a sun is a necessary condition for getting a sun tan, although not in itself sufficient.

Also, theologians themselves debate whether God can know the future without that meaning we don't really have free wil?

There have been a number of answers to that. From what I can remember (but don't automatically trust) Aquinas said that man acted freely but according to his nature, so that as God knew our own personal natures he could know our choices in advance, but they would still be free according to our nature. Another attempted solution comes from Boethius who utilised a distinction between a simple and a contingent necessity, but I won't go into that one here. And then there are "open theists" who believe that human freedom is so radical it actually limits God's knowledge, such that the future is actually unknown to him insofar as our freedom affects it.

And why should we not think that maybe Allah rather than Yahweh is the real God, again without using Scripture so as to know who has the real Heaven?

In general, question as to whether there can be positive religious knowledge is contentious in philosophy. One stance was Huxley's "agnosticism" which is said he used to describe his belief in an unknowable God. Many atheists believe that the problem of evil (either the logical or the evidential version) showns that an all good, powerful and knowing God does not exist, be he called Allah or YHWH* or any other. Theists often tend to use a free will defence to the problem, although there are others.

[snip]
Thanks in advance to all who comment!
Blessings and goodwill to all!

Ty again, peace.

* I have been told that the RCC has come to an agreement with the Jews not to use the use what is thought to be the proper rendering of YHWH (the tetragrammaton), as IIRC the Jews believe that casual use, for instance on internet fora, is blasphemous or disrespectful.

 

[Gracchus]

Heaven is a big cheeseburger with fresh cut white onions, lettuce, fresh tomato slices and a dill pickle on the side. Seasoned fries are a must.

Going to potty afterwards is hell.

Serves you right for putting onions on a hamburger.

 

[griggs1947]

Growing Smaller, my contention is that no Devil should tempt people anywhere whatsoever as that makes it so much harder to do good! The denizens of both places would not be robots with free will and no way to do wrong; they could decide amongst good, better and the best as Porter Burton would note. John Hick uses the it may be of guesswork to argue that in Heaven there might be analogous virtues. Again, why not have them here also? He argues that perhaps all will, after some undergo some kind of purgatory to Heaven, but why then not in the first place with all the pointless evil? And to claim that He has reason for that is again, the argument from ignorance!
The problem of Heaven strikes at all suppositions about the need for soul-making and the free will argument, finding that they special plead!
It refines the logical problem of evil to remark that God could not be omnibenevolent, omnisicent and omnipotent as He, for the sake of argument, hasn't been consistent for a worthy reason, and thus these three attributes conflict, affriming ignosticiscs. Now, to avoid then that He thus cannot exist, some call for limited God, whom Brightman and Bertocci find has the " Given," something corresponding to our nature. This God would then depend on us to help Him overcome evil. More on this later.
Again, what is the evidential, non-scriptural source of any religion for Heaven, Hell and contra-causal free will [ no causes ]?
I've two books on open theism that I'll read soon.
As always, this is a top-notch site for serious inquirers!
Gracchus, "[]faith is the we just say so of credulity." Fr.Griggs

 

[griggs1947]

See my last two posts @ The Problem of Hell which were meant for here.For more views, Google Fr.Meslier's the problem of Heaven.
Jan Meslier – Testament

 

[griggs1947]

To argue that after all, people will get recompense in Heaven means that God is a sadist who nevertheless in the end does the right thing, but then having Hell makes Him also a sadist!
So, then neither omni-God nor limited God needs for us to have free wills for soul-making. Besides, we have Dennett Determinism/ Choice Determinist/ Determined Volition.
And no theists ever vouchsafe that future state and Heaven and Hell. It'd be to beg the question to aver that Scriptures do just that!

Despite, Alvin Plantinga, he has not defeated either the logical or evidential problem from evil. His unknown defense argument reflects the argument from ignorance.
With foreknowledge, He'd know already the outcome of soul-making tests so they are quite unnecessary. Ah, but physics denies his clairvoyance as it denies His telepathy- that communication with people.
Trans-world depravity means nothing! Original sin never has existed as Adam and Eve were only mythical, and Michael Ruse's, non-theist, attempt to salvage the term bespeaks obfuscation based on the argument from ignorance!
Christian Boards,Debating Christianity, TheologyOnLine and TheologyWeb also merit praise as does Christian Forums! I also recommend Philosophy Forums as a worthy site whilst I no longer post there. I was Carneades-Hume there and the Prosblogion, a philosopher's site open to the public.

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

Here's what I believe.

First, to clear some things up.
Any attribute that a created thing has must be brought into actuality by a prior cause. However, there is nothing before God upon which He depends to become what He is now. All that He is, He is from eternity. God cannot change (Ps. 55:19, Num. 23:19). Nothing can be added or subtracted from an infinite.

Man is not like God in this sense; man can change. For God, freedom is having the power to do that which pleases Him. Not so with created things. Humans can actually choose evil without it being contrary to reason. So, we can't have free will while being guaranteed not to sin.

You might ask, couldn't God make man in a way that it would be certain that he would have freedom but not rebel? It would be impossible for man's freedom to be the same as God's, as described above.

Now I get to my point.

People in heaven have knowledge of sin that Adam did not have before he fell. In heaven, the redeemed will be able to fully know the contrast between God's goodness and the horrendous effects of evil. With glorified minds and bodies, they cannot possibly choose evil. God did give Adam the warning (Gen. 2:17), but mental knowledge is different from experiential knowledge. Having experienced the full effects of sin and the presence of God, one will not decide to turn back to sin.

 

[quatona]

Now I get to my point.

People in heaven have knowledge of sin that Adam did not have before he fell. In heaven, the redeemed will be able to fully know the contrast between God's goodness and the horrendous effects of evil.

According to Christian theology this would be all of us - if only we were going to heaven.

With glorified minds and bodies, they cannot possibly choose evil. God did give Adam the warning (Gen. 2:17), but mental knowledge is different from experiential knowledge. Having experienced the full effects of sin and the presence of God, one will not decide to turn back to sin.

So what again was the reason God doesn´t allow some people to experience his goodness in the afterlife?

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

According to Christian theology this would be all of us - if only we were going to heaven.

Yes, anyone who gets into heaven will be in the presence of God.

I'll use an analogy. Imagine two young sons living in an apartment with their father in a rough neighborhood. One of the sons - Mitch - is an orphan, adopted off the streets of their neighborhood. The other son - Charlie - is blood-related to the father, and has not experienced the atrocities which Mitch has gone through.

The father tells both sons, "Do not venture outside at night. It's unsafe, and you won't like it. Moreover, I won't be able to find you."

Mitch, having already experienced being out late in their neighborhood, and all the dangers it entails, easily agrees. He knows that staying in the apartment is what's best for him, and could never imagine choosing to go back to his old life.

Charlie, on the other hand, doesn't know what it's like, and becomes curious. He ventures outside, only to get lost and unable to find his way back.

This is basically what I'm saying. Sinners who are justified by faith and get into God's presence will never want to go back to their sinful ways. They will discover just how much better His presence is for them. Meanwhile, the angels who rebelled against God, along with Adam & Eve, had not yet experienced sin. They didn't realize how bad of a mistake they were making. Once they made it, they could not get back.

Like the angels who rebelled against God, we will have free will in Heaven. The difference is this: We have experienced sin. We will discover just how much better God's presence is, and there's no way we would ever choose to go back to our sinful ways.

So what again was the reason God doesn´t allow some people to experience his goodness in the afterlife?

I, as a sinner, am not fit to be in the presence of God. Only through faith in Jesus Christ can I, or you, or anybody else, be justified (John 3:16, John 14:6).

Thank you for inquiring, I hope this explanation is clear enough.